AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR bearing crime No.286/2018 dated 03/09/2018 registered at P.S.-Satakhedi, Sitamau, District-Mandsaur for the offence punishable under Section 406, 408 of IPC against the petitioner, praying for discharge of the petitioner.
Facts necessary for just disposal of the petition are that on 10/08/2018, a written complaint was filed against the petitioner by the respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner being a public servant has misused the Register, Daily Diaries Books and other important documents of the Institution. From the date of inception of Institution, all Officers and Employees were maintaining daily diaries and it was being duly verified by the Authorized Officer and handed over to the Librarian. For the work evaluation of last five years of the Officers and Employees of the Institution, the Director of the Institute constituted an Evaluation Committee. On 11-12/06/2018 and 22/06/2018, a meeting of the Evaluation Committee was held in which the petitioner has not produced the daily diaries and other relevant documents, which clearly shows failure on her part. Therefore, respondent No.2 filed an application before the Police Station and Police has registered the FIR bearing crime No.286/2018 dated 03/09/2018 registered at P.S.-Satakhedi, District-Sitamau for the offence punishable under Section 406, 408 of IPC against the petitioner. It is further alleged that petitioner is Employee of the said Institution and respondent No.2 is Director of the Institute. Petitioner joined on 19/11/1993 on probation as librarian and got permanent on 16/01/1997. It is further submitted that on 12/11/2001, an official order was issued by the respondent No.2 stating that in absence of petitioner Ku. Rekha Dwivedi will be the In-charge of Library. In the year 2009, some documents were handed over to petitioner for safely keeping. On 10/02/2012 another order issued for handing over these documents to Mr. Om Ramawat. On complaint, an investigation was done by Officers of Employee's Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Ujjain on 08/12/2017 and found that there are 20 employees are working in the Institution, thereafter several correspondence were exchanged. Petitioner made an appeal before the Management Committee on 05/07/2018, which is still pending. Also made representation regarding fair investigation in FIR to the SP, District-Mandsaur but no action has been taken by the police in this regard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and she has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that in view of the evidence available on record, no case under the aforesaid section is made out against the petitioner. It is argued that no show-cause notice was given to the petitioner and without any enquiry or investigation, the petitioner was dismissed and FIR has bee lodged against her. It is stated that petitioner was in service from last 25 years and there was no single allegation in her past service career. Hence, he prays for quashment of FIR.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supported the registering the FIR stating that ample material evidence is available against the present petitioner, therefore, the police has rightly registered the FIR and prays for dismissal of the petition.
I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
After going through the FIR, it appears that there is sufficient/ample material available against the petitioner, which goes to the root of the case, which have to be appreciated and examined by the learned trial Court. The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is extra ordinary in nature and it is settled proposition of law that this power has to be exercised sparingly and only in the cases where attaining facts and circumstances satisfy that possibilities of miscarriage of justice will arise in case of non-use of power. The Court can interfere with the findings of the Court below in such exceptional cases where it appears that the orders if not corrected would be great injustice to someone, where in passing the order, the Court is capricious and arbitrary or where order passed by learned Courts below have been based on no evidence or material at all available on record or order has been passed on such evidence or material which is wholly irrelevant or arbitrary. At this stage sifting or weighing of the evidence is neither permitted nor expected.
In Krishnanan Vs. Krishnaveni (1997 AIR SCW 950 : AIR 1997 SC 987) it is held that when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power. It may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings.
In Bhajan Lal's case (State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604) Hon'ble the Supreme Court has prepared a guideline in this regard. Para 108 of the judgment reads thus:
In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F. I. R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/ or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
Keeping in view the settled proposition of law, the nature of offence and its gravity and the evidence available on record against the petitioner, I do not find any ground to quash the FIR bearing crime No.286/2018 dated 03/09/2018 registered at P.S.-Satakhedi, Sitamau, District-Mandsaur for the offence punishable under Section 406, 408 of IPC against the petitioner at the present stage. This Court cannot usurp jurisdiction of the trial Court. Present petition is bereft of merit, liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.